I joined the fundraising committee, attended the IRC meetings, announced the localizations approach of the fundraising campaign in the Catalan Wikipedia, subscribed the fundraising mailing list and sent a mail to Florence asking for aces to the list. But after almost one month I have not access to the list yet.

I am thinking in withdrawing from de committee.

There are several ideas I was wiling to comment I leave them here perhaps you feel some of them is worth to be taken into account:

In several zones Google send people to articles in English Wikipedia even if the local language is not English. I wonder if people would feel more inclined to donate if they receive the messages in their native language instead of in the language of the Wikipedia that Google sends them. I propose two kinds of test:

Put the message in the language of the territory from where the people are connected.

Put bilingual messages: in the language of the territory plus the language of the Wikipedia.

Tests can be made in Catalan speaking areas of Spain where we have detected a lot of people being sent by Google to Spanish and English Wikipedias.

I also wonder if localization could be made not only by language but also by dialect. By detecting the IP perhaps we could send the messages in different dialect to people from Brazil and to people from Portugal or to people from Valencia and people from Barcelona.

An interesting issue could be to study if people are more inclined to give when they can give to a local organization. Three tests could be made:

Only one button to give to WMF

Two buttons to give to WMF and to Local Chapter or Local Organization.

Only one button to give to Local Chapter or organization.

The key point is to know in which case the total sum raised is bigger.

I see it is difficult that local communities participate in meta. One idea could be organizing a contest to propose messages in local languages and then bring the results to meta. Perhaps a contest among languages could be organized by giving a symbolic prize to the community proposing the localized banner with the highest efficiency. Perhaps the highest relative increase compared to standard messages, so all communities (large, small, rich, poor) have the same chance to succeed.

About the fundraising list, don't worry about it. It's not for coordination of our fundraising activities so please don't let that put you off. Now, let's get on to your excellent ideas.

Almost everything you bring up is good to hear as to what you want, because that is what we want projects to want. We'll be engaging banners customized based on geolocation and project. So if the Catalan community can come up with both a translation of our approved banners and localized banners of their own, we can target them to the Catalan userbase. Localization is very important to us. I am the liasion for the Catalan community, and I know you have a vibrant and active culture and we want to encourage readers to participate in your community through donation and action.

Over the past few weeks and the upcoming ones we are testing our software on the English Wikipedia to make sure that we have everything we need for local outreach. Once up to 100% functionality, we will begin the localization process. Deniz, James, and myself will be monitering literally all 663 Wikimedia projects and we're here to help.

So yes, our priorities are spot on with yours, and I look forward to working with you in Catalan and where ever else we can build fundraising. Please, contact me any time. Keegan (WMF), Fundraising 2010 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

will be glad to help since I am the fundraising contact on wikimedia france side. Notice that I am already in the committee lonnnnng list. I just need to remember to come over here every couple of days at least :) Anthere

Is there any way I can disable this on ms.wiki and simple.wiki, and restore the OBOD? Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You can restore the OBOD for yourself using javascript and css, as en.wp has available in its gadgets. You can find the code here (js) and here (css). Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but may I know which code (.js and .css) is for what, and if we need to place both codes? Also, does placing the codes get rid of Notifications? Thanks for your help. :) Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The .js is to turn on the OBOD and goes in User:FooBar/common.js, the .css makes the magic appear and goes in User:FooBar/common.css. This will not get rid of notifications but will bring back the old style you are used to. You can turn off most all functions of Notifications in your preferences. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

en.wiki has this code (as seen on my vector.css page) that gets rids of Notifications. That is, we don't see that box with the '0' inside it. Does it work on other wikis as well? Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed this! As long as the code doesn't depend on anything you have set for English, in theory it could work. I cannot make guarantees though, I'm not a coder. Please do note that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't responsible for code that it doesn't write, and doesn't offer support for it either. Give it a shot, see if it works. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keegan, you left me a message to help out with translations. I attempted to get to the site and even created a userid there, although I thought that it would be under the universal logon. However, it does not allow me to translate. I got stuck at FirstSteps Rather it is giving me this message: "...Well done! You now have an user page. Request translator permissions Now you need to place a request to be added to the translator group. Select the primary language you are going to translate to. You can mention other languages and other remarks in textbox below..." See if you could help me get through the initial hurdles (I am not that patient, I guess) and I will try to help out when I can :) Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (Ace)

Thanks for getting started!

translatewiki is not a Wikimedia operation, although development has come from the Wikimedia Foundation, so SUL does not work there, unfortunately.

You've done step one (registering) and step two (userpage), now you just have to do step three. The instructions will have you place a message requesting the translator flag, and you are ready to start. It will take less than a day. This step is not fun, having to wait. It is to prevent false accounts that could change translations to bad things. I'm sorry about that. If you finish the steps by this time tomorrow you should be able to translate on translatewiki. I will poke some people about getting it approved as soon as possible. Maybe you could work on the Help page in the meantime? I'm not very patient with things like this either, so I understand. Thank you again for your help. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation, and for letting me know that there are another projects (echo and thanks) which need to be translated. I'm glad that I can help in Indonesian translation. I will do my best to translate the echo and thanks project too.

You said "This page can be hosted after translation on mediawiki.org or we can localize it to this Wikipedia (sic).", but delivered the message globally, which also means other projects than Wikipedia, another time where sister projects are ignored by WMF staff I guess... Amqui (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm sorry about that, Amqui. It was an honest mistake in copyediting. I am very supportive of sister projects, and I pushed very firmly to get this Notifications release out to all of them and not just Wikipedias. My apologies. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a say in the matter? (Your message makes it sound like this going to be turned on whether we want it or not . . .) —RuakhTALK 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ruakh. Notifications is considered a "core feature" of the Wikimedia MediaWiki-powered wikis, so it is going to be installed on all projects. No, it's not an option. What Notifications does provide is a high level of customization. You can adjust those in your preferences. You can set it to only receive a notice about a talk page message and if your userrights have been changed, so essentially you can turn off Notifications on an individual level. I hope that you give it a try, though. You might find it useful! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, not sure about do you read my talk page at fi:User Talk:Stryn. I didn't write any announcement on the Finnish Wikipedia yet, because Beta Features is not yet even mediawiki.org (I'm wondering why). Is it still planned to deploy on the next week in other projects as you wrote? I also can't find any blog post yet about these features. --Stryn (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote you back on your Finnish talk page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I'm not on the language committee, but I have passed along your question. Someone should be in touch with the answer for you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
so thanks for your help be success I'll wait for your answer

Hello
please help us to eligiblity of luri lrc languag https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lrc this language has 7 active involved users (with me) and these days has more activations this language has approximately 10 milion speakers in iran, irag, and other country of the world, this language has rich verbal literature but it has'nt his own wikipedia
so thankslrc lori (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, lrc lori. I haven't heard back anything from my request, but I can point you to Requests for new languages here on meta where you officially file to have a new language Wikipedia created. Hope this helps. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking your time and informing us about the coming change! Though, wasn't that message sent out a bit too early? On the global renamers' talk page I today left a still unanswered comment why SRGP would be the wrong place to request this right, and now this message implies to me a decision was made. Is that the case? Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vogone. I sent out the message this early to make absolutely sure that every 'crat we have had time to see the message (by my count there are 1,127 Wikimedia project bureaucrats) and to give local processes enough time to get pages and communities updated. The last thing we want is anyone saying "No one told me!" for this project :)

As for the SRGP, it is my understanding that the stewards have decided to use this page; this decision was just made this weekend-ish so the wiki has not caught up to the decision, I believe. @DerHexer: may be able to answer this more clearly. Thanks for contacting me! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taki... oops, already said above :-) More seriously, your message mentions only unified accounts but we still have, from time to time, an "old" usder which acount has never been sul-ified. What will happen for them, especially if the username has already been taken on another wiki, or reserved? Maybe this question is answered somewhere here on meta, but I could not find it. Litlok (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question, Litlok. If the account has not been SUL'd and there is a clash with another account when the finalization occurs, the account will be renamed with a project suffix (that is the current plan, at least). So User:JohnDoe on, say, the Vietnamese Wikipedia, if he met those conditions, would be renamed and SUL'd to User:JohnDoe~viwp. The current plan is also have a notice appear the first time they log in after the SUL finalization occurs to let them know that they have been renamed, they need to log in with the new name, and also provide a link to a quick and easy rename request if they would like to change it from what they were automatically renamed to. I hope that helps, plans are subject to change. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the nitpicking but you wrote: "This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat,"; I'm sure you meant affect.

Other than that, thank you for the message, I'll follow those instructions later this week.

Thanks for the information about the new process to be applied. That's appreciated. I will try to update local page on Turkish Wikipedia as soon as possible. --Mskyrider (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we cease local renames and usurps, I'd like to see a proper timeline for SUL implementation. As you are aware, there have been extreme delays in the previous timeline. If similar delays hit again, users with complicated username situations that are hoping for a rename may be left in limbo. I've seen Talk:Single_User_Login_finalisation_announcement#Update, but it's not very clear on what happens after we get global rename tools. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey 99of9, it's partly because of such weird timelines that this project has had that we're hesitant to specify an exact date right now; I hope to have one in six weeks when the engineering for SUL finalisation is complete. What happens after the tools are built is messaging - messaging, messaging, messaging. The plan is to notify every user that will be affected by this change and give them ample opportunity to change their username on their own instead of being forcibly renamed. It is natural that we will not be able to have 100% success rate, but every opportunity will be taken to get this message across. This could take three months. It could take six months. Or longer. We are not really sure how long that will take at this very moment, but we do know that SUL finalisation is happening. I will be sure to let you know when we do have firm dates. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If SUL finaization is not ready, I don't understand why local renames are being turned off. Bureaucrats can be trusted enough not to go around breaking SULs willy-nilly and will still need the local rename ability to carry out usurpations of not-yet-finalized unattached accounts. –xeno 23:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Xeno, turning off local renames is one of the first steps of the process. Next will be notifying the 4.3 million accounts that may be affected. While I assume good faith that local bureaucrats don't go breaking SULs willy-nilly, as you say, the reality of the situation is that this does occur all the time, particularly on projects that aren't as structured to protect such an issue from occurring. The Stewards can attest to this, and one of the biggest blockers to SUL finalization is the fact that SULs are broken on a regular basis, which defeats the purpose and makes more work for SUL finalization. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm crat at fa.wp. Thank you and I made a notice but I want to inform you about the things that need to be considered, Please see Rename_practices#fa.wikipedia. I can explain more if you want. Amir (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Amir. I understand your concern, specifically over names in non-latin characters. This concern is shared by the Stewards and is one of the many reasons that the Global renamer group is being created and experienced 'crats are invited to apply to join. Your knowledge about these local conventions can be quite helpful to the team, and it is welcomed :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll request in early of September Amir (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the "Flawed Consultation Process" to the Community_Engagement_(Product)/Media_Viewer_consultation page. I certainly agree that discussions belong on the discussion page. However I believe the content of the Media_Viewer_consultation page was itself critically flawed. I could have attempted to directly edit the existing text to fix the problem, but somehow I don't think that would have been better. Chuckle.

So.... I made a Bold edit. You Reverted. Perhaps we can Discuss. Do you see any potential validity in my view that the Media_Viewer_consultation has a problem, and that it could be improved? And if so, do you have any thoughts on how we could go about improving it? Thanks! Alsee (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me a message, Alsee. I was on my way to leave you a talk page note as well but got caught up in other edits and by that point you'd left your comments on the talk page. I'm about to head to bed, I'm in central North America, but if you further want to flesh out your ideas feel free to either do so here or make a new User talk:Keegan (WMF)/ space to outline thoughts. I'll look it over in the morning. Thank you again for taking your time, I look forward to hearing more. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I'll post here for the moment, I'm fine if you move it

I have my personal position on Media Viewer, but if the community goes the other way, fine. I'm here because I don't want to see WMF and the community battle again. It's not good for anyone. I don't think this consultation process will work as-is. I don't want to risk the WMF getting blindsided when you fix everything on the list and the community may still reject it.

I honestly believe everyone at the WMF has the best of intentions. I blame the lawyers, chuckle. Legal doesn't like staff editing for liability reasons. If staff that can't participate in the community then there's not much chance for them to understand the community. Confusion and chaos ensues.

My edit attempting to improve the page was to have the page state that the consultation process was badly flawed. In theory I would gladly accept to virtually any edit to the page that you propose, if that edit indicates there is a serious problem with the process. However if we do reach agreement that the page should say the process is flawed then maybe it's the process itself which winds up being edited.

The design of the consultation page and consultation process accepts only an extremely narrow kind of feedback. The only thing it asks for, the only thing it accepts, are suggestions on how to improve media viewer. Furthermore the page lists the criteria by which any submission will be evaluated. The criteria are quite clearly directed to ranking proposed improvements to media viewer, and any submission that does not take the form of an improvement to media view is going to get filtered out. I am not merely guessing that it will filter out any other kind of feedback. Your survey suffered from the same feedback-filtering problem. I forget the exact wording, but your media viewer survey had a question asking for the exact same kind of feedback. I found a link on the WMF website that lead me to over 500 of the actual text responses to the survey. I also found another link showing how the WMF processed that chaotic text information down to a usable summary form. It's clear that each text response was examined searching for anything that could be interpreted as a bug or problem to fix, and a list of bugs was compiled along with the number of times each one was mentioned. Any portion of feedback text that could not be classified into one or more bug reports simply did not make it into the processed summary. In fact the #1 response didn't make it into the summary. The #1 response was, by far, some variation on "Wikipedia's original image view page is better than Media Viewer". That couldn't get into the summary because there's no way to code that in your bug list.The process can't "hear" anything that doesn't fit into a narrow process of collecting work for the WMF to do, to enable the WMF can reach a pre-defined outcome of completing media viewer deployment. I'm sure the intentions were good, but the WMF put in place a communication process that railroads you to a predefined outcome. Note that I am not saying that you're railroading us. The consultation process doesn't allow the WMF to hear anything or do anything that would divert from the predefined outcome. And Lila stated her talk page "The intended meaning is that there is no pre-defined outcome for these talks".

If the WMF reaches the effectively pre-defined outcome of fixing stuff and trying to finalize deployment, and the WMF feels that it expended heroic efforts reaching out to satisfy the community, and the community still rejects media viewer, then the WMF is going to think the community are a horde of unreasonable insane children who cannot be dealt with except by superprotecting everything. And the community is going to feel railroaded. And then things might begin to get bad.

I have some further thoughts on editing the page / editing the process, but I need sleep and it's probably a good idea to wait and see if you find any value in anything I've said. Alsee (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I formatted it a little to put this under one main section. I'll make sure people read this. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I woke up with, I think, valuable new insights. When I sat down to reply I realized something. I'm one small random voice eager to aid a community I value. I'm encouraged at what seems to be a chance for quiet productive dialog in the midst of all this chaos. I was encouraged that you seem to find my input worthy of sharing at WMF. While all this is grounded in "improving the consultation page text", my mind is running off on a pretty long tangent on how to improve the WMF-community interaction. I don't want to get carried away taking over some random person's talk page to spew forth my Grand Ideas To Fix The World. Chuckle. Were you interested literally discussing text-edits to the consultation page - ones with no impact on the process itself? Were you interested in hearing "edits to the page" that would constitute a concrete change in what input it asks for and maybe a change in input form? Or were you interested in more expansive ideas on how WMF and the community can work together? Alsee (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm interested in hearing your more expansive ideas. There's value being "one small random voice eager to aid a community" you value - every person here started as one small random voice. Personally, I don't believe that any one voice is small or random. We all have merit and value in our ideas and opinions. Anything you'd like to share here is fine by me. What I can do with what you say, I am not sure. What I do know is that it's always good for me to listen :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. I've had some threads of ideas, and somehow the discussion with you helped it all crystallize. Maybe I'm fantasizing here, I'm imagining the section below sparking big things. It is deliberately designed to be shortish and provocatively unexplained. I'm imagining people thinking Oh My God Yes Where Can We Get Some Of That?

Is this what the WMF is attempting to invent, for the consultation process?[edit]

Initiate an open invitation for everyone's input.

Generate a meaningful end product from that input.

Everyone involved in the process sees the result as having sufficient legitimacy, even if they dislike the result.

Everyone involved in the process respects the results, even if they dislike those results.

Those who are not directly involved in the process see the result as having sufficient legitimacy, even if they dislike the result.

Those who are not directly involved respect the results, even if they dislike those results.

Everyone, involved or not, accept that everyone, involved or not, have been reasonably represented.

If an initial process is found to have been too small it might need to be repeated in expanded form. Such a situation would typically be discovered promptly, minimizing disruption.

The process might sometimes be repeated reversing a prior outcome, and this may be disruptive, however respect for the process itself is sufficient to discourage doing so without Good Cause.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it works well enough that everyone can get back to work.

Based on Lila's User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Consultation_.22without_pre-defined_outcome.22.3F " 'There is no pre-defined outcome' means that any production feature may run into a difficult and blocking problem, if that happens it may need to be pulled back to be fixed" the text on the consultation page appears to accurately reflect the WMF's intent to only accept a deliberately narrow form of "consultation" to reach a pre-defined outcome. I formally accept your revert of my edit as our consensus text for the consultation page, chuckle. That doesn't preclude our broader discussion, but in my view it puts a painful damper on it. My previous post was pretty much intended to describe the RfC process, implying that the WMF was trying to reinventing the wheel. But it doesn't seem Lila places any value in that particular wheel. Alsee (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

While most of (around 98 %) Marathi language users have been using Roman script, with improved user awareness campaign, there has been a steady increase in using w:en:Devnagari script since this August month. We identified an issue due to new user's typing mistakes while creating user name using Devnagri script. For example a new user name which has typing mistake is स्वप्निल् with typing mistake in last charecter ल् What it should have been is ल . Mostly the new account creators (having spell mistakes) themselves are not realising that such mistake is happening from there end and next time when they will try to log-in they are likely to try user name without spell mistake and wont succeed and likely to get frustrated not realising what problem they are coming across. We (Marathi Devanagari using) people would need to address this problem since स्वप्निल् and स्वप्निल are almost very very similler and an account without spell mistake may be already existing and if issue not addressed will keep local community confused in their actions and discussions.

Usually I should have had option that I use filter not allowing these spell mistakes at the begining itself these spell mistakes do not occur but as of now this is technically difficult for Devanagri script and a bug (no.46773) has been filed already before few months and is still unresolved. As of now as beurocrat second option available before me was to take local decesion to rename spell mistake accounts on my own so new user would not get frustrating experience when he will try his next log-in session. With the beurocat local decesion rights in renaming respect likely to get reduced, it is unforseen challange before us.

Since the problem is newly identified I will need to discuss further with mr-community locally besides since global renaming will be the system hence forwards I will need to consult issue with other Devnagri script using wikipedias (specially Hindi and Nepalese Wikipedias) beurocrats and admins to find some solution. That consultation I will begin soon.

Mean while I would like to understand, whether as a Global renamer we would have authority to rename such spelling mistake accounts on our own so that newuser experience remains smooth to participate in the community comfortably enough. This will help me in my consultations and decesions.

Mahitgar, thank you for your detailed message. As a global renamer, you would be able to fix these spelling mistakes. Let me know how the consultations go, I appreciate the notice about that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: I would suggest that a direct contact with the Translations and Internationalisation team by email would be useful to discuss the bug. Runa was recently very helpful to me in discussing a font issue, and I found that team supportive in the resolution. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And a quick one about authority in fixing typos in spelling. No. You can query a user, and maybe point out an inconsistency, however, user choices are their choices to make, and if they want an inconsistency, it is only a username, not a grammatical sentence. So global renamers, like stewards, only respond to rename requests, not initiate them. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We may be reading it differently, I didn't take it as a suggestion that they just rename people without a request. I think there is just an overall problem which is going to grow. Thanks for the note about the language engineering team, btw :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What do I say, may be it is my personal failuer to put my point across. One of early wikipedia founder has said having only one encyclopedia is not the best idea, so that way loosing some new users can be a good idea. Following list of misspelled names is growing every day. The fact what can be underscored is if any big project gets affected shouts then they get weitage and not the logic. I have always seen at wikimedia democracy succeeds ahead of logic. I had been the first to give barnstars to WMF engineering teams but where genuine user satsfaction goes missing just hype does not benefit.

Dear Keegan, could you please help me out: is there a final decision (maybe with link(s)) what are the rules for resolving conflicts between users with the same user name? I read somewhere in a discussion, that if there is a SUL account, the owner of the SUL has the preference (even if (s)he has no edit at all and the registration only 1 day old against users with thousands of edits and many years history), if there is no SUL account, the user with most edit has the preference. Thank you in advance: Samat (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Samat. There is not yet a formal hierarchy for renaming in the SUL finalization and I'm not sure how it is completely going to be processed. A good number of the rename requests both before and after the finalization are up the stewards' discretion as to who "owns" the name and I don't expect a lot of that to change. I'll let you know when this structure is finished and published. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this Keegan. Making it smooth and supported for the editors (crats and stewards) who sort this out is needed, given the amount of work involved. –SJtalk 19:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd perhaps encourage you in thinking how to design this properly in Flow. Some thoughts here; in my personal view, leaving the discussion on the same page, but downvoting it, would suffice. This is what helps Reddit to structure its discussions. --Gryllida 22:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Keegan, I started to translate your announcement, and I realized, that in the message you ask everybody to request renames on m:SRUC. There is an ongoing discussion about this question for example here and here, but I am sure, that the SRUC page on meta is not (yet) ready for requests in many different languages. I would formulate your message a little bit different way. Kind regards, Samat (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Same on the english wikipedia right here I recognize that it's code and that it's a template, and I recognize that it's supposed to display a banner, but it's not working, and I'm not actually sure how to fix that or I would. I'm going to remove the message and note why that's being done (it's displaying a full template full of code and is unreadable in it's current form ). Thanks! 199.189.194.1 16:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices, folks, and sorry for the trouble. There was an issue with an HTML tag. Myself and my fellow liaisons have gone through and fixed the messages. I'm very sorry for the interruption, and thank you for not shouting at me :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Years ago I asked to rename my older, global account (Andreteletrabajo) to a new one (Ganimedes), and I could in most all WP except one (turkish, if I don´t remember wrong). Then the account was rename to Ganímedes, but in Commons didn´t want to rename it till all WP do. As a result, now I've got 3 different accounts, but I only want to keep this one. Is it possible to fix this now? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to merge your different global accounts, then it is not yet possible. But this feature is coming soon... Samat (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keegan, I saw the announcement stating that local bureaucrats would no longer be able to rename accounts after the 15th of September. I was thinking of updating the local request page, but then I saw that there are a number of pending requests. Requests at ptwiki are historically slow to resolve, so i was wondering what will happen to the pending requests. Will they be transferred to the Global Rename page or will users have to formulate these again. Sorry if this has been answered somewhere, but I haven't been active in a long time. And i just want to give users the right information. Thanks for your reply. GoEThe (unlogged in)

@GoEThe: Unfortunately I do not have an answer for you because that's a community matter to resolve. So I think the best place to discuss this concern, considering pt.wp is probably not alone here, would be over at Talk:Global rename policy to consider how to carry those out in the most affective way for your community. Let me know if I can be of any other help! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I am not Ori Livne. Basically I am [3], but also [4]. So which is my global name, if any? Thanks, Ori (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like User:Ori and User:Ori~ are both global accounts that are yours. In the very very near future, Ori, Stewards will be able to merge these two accounts into either name of your choice (Ori or Ori~). Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Right now, whenever I log in to commons, I am automatically moved to Ori~ in HE wiki, and there, that is not me any more. So it kind of a hassle. Ori (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ori: Just to clarify, the WMF account I mentioned above IS your staff account correct? (The other accounts you're talking about with Keegan are personal accounts). Jalexander--WMF 17:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jalexander: No. I am not Ori Livneh, and that account (ori livneh) is not mine. I have only the other two I mentioned. Ori (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Something I am always grateful for :) makes the idea of 'a bit' of privacy (even if it's only a bit given all my work here) online a bit more likely. Jalexander--WMF 20:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a great newsletter. (And I like the idea of us being busy structuring bees!) Jheald (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jheald. Good to know about :c: working this way, I've actually never used it since it became available. I'll refactor the current pages and make future issues use c. I appreciate it! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that they don't appreciate it too much.Can be that the foundation should use a neutral tone in the french translation of this page ? Elitre (WMF) is as informed and I hope that it will go soon in the order.With my best regards Grind24 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Grind24. I see that Elitre has asked a question about the translation in Le Bistro. We will contact the fundraising team about the translation as needed. Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

All is now for the better. The discussion has been made on my talk page -- Regards Grind24 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have notification planned, if you take it over all the better!

As for the notifications to users, the earlier the better; but I don't understand how they can work properly if phabricator:T73241 is not fixed. It seems all ops/Platform resources should be put on phabricator:T78727. Get hold of them while they are all in SF? :) --Nemo 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take over then, absolutely :)

Yup, brought it up. See the comments I just made on phab:T73241, the upstream fix will be on the cluster next week and we'll send out the confirmation emails as soon as that happens. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)